Progressive Media Traps: From Witch Hunts to Disinformation Spirals

Maciej Lesiak

January 21, 2025 - 8 minutes read - 1618 words

Ten artykuł jest dostępny również po polsku:
Pułapki progresywnych mediów: Od polowania na czarownice do spirali dezinformacji

What's in this article

I declare the golden age of conspiracy theories and media manipulation mechanisms. At the outset, I want to make it clear: I don’t hold conservative views and I don’t support MAGA. My goal is to analyze contemporary media mechanisms that lead to the creation and reinforcement of disinformation and conspiracy theories. Through analysis of specific cases from the USA, I want to show how media - especially those with a progressive orientation - fall into their own narrative traps, inadvertently fueling the spiral of disinformation. A storm is coming…

Progressive Narrative Under Scrutiny - Criticizing “Wrong” Choices

This morning, I came across a clickbait in Gazeta Wyborcza [one of Poland’s leading liberal newspapers] - specifically in its Wysokie Obcasy section [a prominent feminist supplement of Gazeta Wyborcza focused on women’s issues] which covered the Hindu wife of the new U.S. Vice President. In progressive media, the topic of freedom of choice is sacred – until it concerns someone who has chosen a conservative path.

Diplomas from these two universities opened the doors for her to the most prestigious law school in the United States, Yale Law School. There, during a discussion group meeting on “The Social Decline of White America,” Usha met J.D. Vance. They reportedly clicked right away. “She became my spiritual guide through Yale,” J.D. said about his wife.

The article reviews Usha’s entire career along with her life choices, such as her resignation from a progressive law firm that served, among others, LGBT clients, to focus on family alongside her husband.

Usha Vance doesn’t speak loudly about her political views, however, she is no longer in the Democratic Party. But since she says she believes in and supports her husband, it should be assumed that she supports his views, which are very conservative. J.D. Vance opposes divorce, even in cases of domestic violence. He opposes abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.

The article is quite modest; in fact, it presents the career and political background of her husband, highlighting his deep involvement in the controversial bill “criminalizing so-called affirmative care, including addressing the needs of trans people in higher education.” Wysokie Obcasy, while building a feminist narrative wrapped in a progressive worldview, begins to employ argumentation suggesting the wife’s inappropriate choices - how could a person of color find herself a husband in a discussion group about “The Decline of White America”… I also recommend reading the comments below the article, full of “inclusive empathy.” For me, this is pure hypocrisy. Progressive media have set their own trap.

Double Standards in Media

We defend the right to free choices regardless of racial, gender, or class background - yet here, there’s an insinuation that something doesn’t quite fit the respected readers’ schema. If you truly believe in freedom of choice, you can’t limit it only to people who align with your ideology. Of course, there’s the complex matter of fundamental rights, human rights, and how they intersect in the public sphere - but I believe that this kind of selective hypocrisy causes more harm than good.

On the flip side, there’s a documented contradiction in the conservative camp - J.D. Vance is a politician who built his brand on the narrative of “white America’s decline” and national-conservative values, so progressive media naturally target his private life. These same media outlets cry foul when Obama’s or Kamala’s origins are questioned, yet their logic smoothly transitions into questioning the authenticity of a Hindu wife of different origin. But will this narrative about the hypocrisy of “threats to white America” promoted by Vance’s camp and exposed by progressive media reach their bubble in this form? And here we arrive at the core of the matter.

Trapped in Information Bubbles - The Spiral of Disinformation

It won’t reach them. It will be distorted, ridiculed as hypocrisy (which it partly is), then turned against progressive circles, strengthening disinformation and conspiracy theories. Progressive and conservative supporters live in separate information bubbles, different realities.

We are entering, my dear friends, the golden age of conspiracy theories and disinformation, where hypocrisy is the trigger of a spiral - each event doesn’t end with an explanation or actual debate leading to something positive but generates an endless spiral pushing the topic to new levels of accusations and manipulation.

It’s this kind of hypocrisy that causes many people to lose trust in progressive media. If you defend the right to choose, but only when you agree with the choice – you cease to be credible. I personally also canceled my GW subscription for this reason.

Anatomy of Media Provocation - Elon Musk’s Roman Salute?

An excellent example of the described spiral of disinformation is the case of Elon Musk’s controversial gesture during Trump’s presidential inauguration in January 2025. As seen in the attached image, Musk’s gesture sparked controversy and associations with the fascist salute, which the media immediately picked up. This case perfectly shows, in my opinion, how the mechanism of provocation and reaction works in today’s media:

First, there’s an event that can be interpreted in different ways - a gesture that may (but doesn’t have to) resemble a Roman salute
Mainstream media immediately pick up the most controversial interpretation - sieg heil and reference to extreme neo-Nazi movements
A counterattack follows using the predictability of this reaction - Musk tweets about the “tired Hitler attack”
The entire situation is used to discredit mainstream media as biased and predictable

This case perfectly illustrates how contemporary media fall into the trap of their own prejudices and thought patterns. The provocative action is planned precisely to elicit a specific reaction, which can then be used to undermine the credibility of the entire mainstream. There is one loser here. The intended effect of deprecating journalists and media is achieved.

Importantly, this isn’t about evaluating the gesture itself, but about the mechanism in which the predictable media reaction becomes a weapon in the information war. The spiral of disinformation feeds itself - each subsequent interpretation and reaction becomes fuel for the next round of accusations and counterattacks.

Not Just Usha Vance – Media Double Standards Worldwide

Analyzing American media, one can find several similar cases showing similar paradoxes and hypocrisy in media coverage:

The case of Candace Owens - a conservative commentator of African American origin. Progressive media often criticize her support for the MAGA movement and conservative values, using arguments that in other contexts they would consider problematic due to racial identity.
The case of Amy Chua - a Yale Law School professor who, despite her Asian background, was criticized by liberal media for supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Her book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” also sparked controversy in the context of cultural stereotypes.
The debate around Nikki Haley (née Nimrata Randhawa) - former South Carolina governor of Indian descent faced criticism from progressive media for changing her name and distancing herself from her background, even though the same media defend the right to self-determination regarding identity in other contexts. The example of Nikki Haley is particularly telling here, as it shows how the disinformation mechanism actually works. USA TODAY in its fact-check showed that accusations of “whitewashing” her name were completely false - “Nikki” is her legal middle name given at birth, with Punjabi roots meaning “little” in Sikh tradition. It’s a popular name among youngest daughters in Sikh families. The change to Haley occurred after marriage, which is a normal practice (according to NYT, about 70% of women take their husband’s name). Yet the narrative about “whitewashing identity” is still perpetuated in social and progressive media, perfectly illustrating how the disinformation mechanism works regardless of facts - what matters is the effect and the possibility of using it in the narrative war.
The case of Michelle Malkin - a conservative commentator of Filipino descent, whose views on immigration are often criticized by liberal media in a way that emphasizes her ethnic background.

These cases show how media on both sides of the political spectrum sometimes abandon their declared principles when faced with people who don’t fit their narrative about ethnic minorities or women in politics.

Conclusions: Traps of Contemporary Media

The examples I’ve presented, from Usha Vance’s case, through Musk’s controversial gesture, to Nikki Haley’s story - form a disturbing pattern. Media, especially those with a progressive orientation, often fall into the trap of their own standards and values. While defending certain principles, they paradoxically break them when faced with people or phenomena that don’t fit their narrative.

The mechanism is always similar:

An event or person appears that disrupts the accepted narrative
Media react in a way that contradicts the values they usually defend
This reaction is used to undermine their credibility
A spiral of mutual accusations and disinformation emerges

It seems clear that as a result, everyone loses - advocates of fundamental rights, access to information, or fact-checking - journalists lose credibility, audiences lose access to reliable information, and public debate descends into an abyss of mutual accusations and conspiracy theories. Fuel for radicalism and deprecation of authorities. The only solution seems to be greater media self-awareness and consistent adherence to declared values - regardless of whether they serve our current narrative or not. Whether this is realistic in the age of cyber lords, I leave without an answer…